April 10, 2017

Trump wants rapprochement with Iran, distance from Gulf states

We're getting closer to involvement in an open armed conflict between the Iranian vs. Arabian sides in the struggle for regional dominance in the Middle East, with Syria and the Shia Crescent being on the Iranian side, and the jihadist-enabling monarchies on the other (led by Saudi Arabia).

If you belive in "trusting Trump," what are his views on this choice moving forward? For the past several decades, we have only sided with the Arabians and cut off relations with the Iranians.

It turns out that Trump believes in moving closer to Iran than we have been, and farther away from the Arabians than we have been.

Rewind to 2007, when Iranian President Ahmadinejad is visiting New York to give speeches at the UN and Columbia University. It's a rare appearance of an Iranian President in America.

As the Columbia president is giving the introduction to Ahmadinejad's speech, he turns to him and flatly accuses him, "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."

At the time, Trump was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, and the topic came up. Did we score any wins?

Well, I'll tell you this. I guess [Ahmadinejad] hates us pretty much already. When he leaves New York, he's going to dislike us even more. And in a way, that's too bad. But he certainly dislikes us. And from everything I see on television, between CNN and everything else, he's going to dislike us a hell of a lot more once he leaves.

So, he wasn't some supreme evil or #1 state sponsor of terrorism. He was some foreign leader who we should have made a better impression on and gotten something out of. It was a missed opportunity.

For even clearer statements, see this vintage Trump appearance on Fox & Friends from 2007:

President Bush was also at the UN at the time, but doesn't meet Ahmadinejad. Trump says that instead of blowing him off, Bush should be meeting, talking, and negotiating with the Iranian leader, especially now that he's on our turf (a rare opportunity for home field advantage).

A Fox host asks, "Do you think he's mentally stable?" Trump: "Who, the President?" lol. Trump calls the Persian "smart like a fox" who is probably playing other world leaders without them realizing it.

Trump reiterates that Iraq didn't knock down WTC -- that it was Saudi Arabia and other (Gulf) countries. Then he adds for emphasis that it wasn't Iran either on 9/11. He calls out Saudi Arabia again for probably harboring Bin Laden, when the retarded media is focusing on distraction countries.

At least as far back as a 1999 interview with Larry King, discussing his political views while considering a presidential campaign in 2000, Trump has made his displeasure known that "Saudi Arabia is ripping us off big-league".

Since the Iraq War, he has regularly made statements about how Iran's influence is growing in the region (and that was before Iran started taking over Iraq's oil, a common complaint of his now). As a savvy businessman, he knows that this means there's more and more reason to try to cut some kind of deal with them. Get a piece of the action, rather than get shut out. He probably has not just the oil in mind but the geopolitical strength that oil brings with it.

Here are all of Trump's tweets that mention Iran. Most are about the nuclear deal, and his criticism was always how bad our negotiators were at getting goodies for our side, not that it was immoral to make the deal, it would lead to nukes, etc. Unlike Lyin' Ted, Trump did not promise to "rip to shreds" the deal as President.

The other occasions are outrage when they antagonize us, but that burns out quickly.

And mentioning that Iran's power and influence continue to grow. He sounds upset not on an existential level, like the Antichrist is growing more powerful -- but because we have no relations with them, and they're holding more and more of the cards in the Middle East, especially regarding oil. He's pissed that we can't get in on that because we've so isolated ourselves from them, and on the few times when we do interact, we give them everything and get nothing in return.

He certainly has never mocked an Iranian politician like he did a major figure in the Saudi royal family:

Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected. #Trump2016

Verdict: Trump favors rapprochement not only with Russia, but also their major ally in the Middle East, Iran (aside from defending their client, Assad, as the lesser evil). He has held this view for at least the past 10 years, and is making his calculations based on utilitarian concerns like rising vs. falling relative influence. If the Saudis are down and Iran is up, then we should re-allocate our relations away from the Arabians and toward the Iranians.

All the more reason given how we were stabbed in the back by the Gulf states on 9/11, and provide them with free defense without which they wouldn't exist. Iran does not parasitize us militarily or blow up our skyscrapers, so they would make better-faith partners.

If we the American citizens can drown out the drumbeat of war, we may actually get to see the President make good on his long-held goal for aligning ourselves away from the jihadist hotbed of Arabia and toward a worthy fuckin' adversary at the deal-making table. "The Persians -- they're great negotiators, folks."

Aside from that line, he does not idealize or romanticize Iran, but he's a realist -- and who is the alternative? The two big oil nations there are Iran and Saudi Arabia (Iraq is big, but becoming an extension of Iran). By now we see what we get from throwing in with the Saudis rather than the Iranians, a relationship that Putin has been benefiting from -- without having Iranians hijack planes and fly them into Moscow skyscrapers.

28 comments:

If US wants more leverage in the Middle East, am a bit confused why they don't simply play the Sunni and Shia factions against each other. If the neocons got their way with Syria, might actually screw up the balance of power.

It took an ascendant ISIS closing in on Baghdad for a desperate US to open a real dialogue with Iran...that should already have been going on.

At this point we'll see what Trump's intentions are. Hoping he was making a back room deal to get in Gorsuch. A good sign would be if he starts appealing his travel bans as soon as he can.The celebration of the neocons, though, suggests there may be more going on...unless they're dumb enough to get that happy over one concession. Given their behavior during election season, certainly not impossible...or they are clever enough to understand their praise is damaging.

Ag, some links that may be helpful to readers about Russia and the Slavic peoples, particularly the Pan-Slavic movement. Since you note often the WWII similarities, I'll quickly note to readers that the role of this movement is much debated with regards to its contribution to WWI. Very interesting is Russia's dominance to the chagrin of western Slavic nations in the 20th century leading up to WWI.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Pan-Slavism

Notice focus is on eastern and southern, not western Catholic Slavic nations. Eastern Orthodox and Slavic biker tour to strengthen these bonds.http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/russia-s-night-wolves-head-to-the-balkans-for-slavic-tour-06-21-2016

Quick note to readers: this history will help inform why someone like John Schindler, Orthodox I think but more "West" is on edge. Sailer has written some on the Jews and their relationship and history with Russia, but hopefully this will provide a cursory, fuller picture.

One more thing that may or may not be significant but is different from 100 years ago: the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are more unified than they've been in over 1000 years. The installation of the new Pope saw the Orthodox Patriarchs involved in the absolute most intimate and holy ceremonies. Praying together at St. Peter's tomb! Indeed, I had a friend begin attending one of the Eastern churches (she had some ancestry) and she can do this while still calling herself Catholic...

Back to the Slavs... The last World Youth Day, a Roman Catholic festival, was held in Poland and guess who else also took part: clergy from the Orthodox churches. The youth come from all over the world, but the stamp of the place is also put on it... At one point, the proto-Slavic language was used during the Papal Mass.(This incorporation is not unique to the Eastern Orthodox, Lawrence Auster was able to convert to RC while remaining in English Rite Church under these new rules, but that's much tinier in scope than with the East.

"If US wants more leverage in the Middle East, am a bit confused why they don't simply play the Sunni and Shia factions against each other."

Because we are no longer #1 with few powerful rivals. We could play the Iraqi and Iranian sides against each other during the 1980s because our society had not gone into a tailspin just yet, and the Soviet Union was imploding and could not take sides there.

Also, Iran was just starting to toughen up after the Revolution in '79.

By now, Iran is a strongly unified country with growing power and influence, and is backed by Russia which is also stronger and more unified over time.

Meanwhile, our ability to impose our will in the Mid-East has been proven to not exist.

Those are superficial factors, not fundamental. The Israelis and Saudis lavishing our politicians with so much money is a formality -- we wanted to align ourselves together for geopolitical reasons, and them paying us follows from that.

What if an Iranian lobby sprung up overnight and offered to pay a US Senator more than what the Saudis were paying him? Would that Senator turn 180 degrees and start shilling for Iran? No, because we are not aligned with them, and they would get crucified for trying to.

They would be accused of being bought off by the Iranians. It would not matter if the accusers were getting big money from the Saudis -- that would not count as "being bought off," but being rewarded by loyal friends and allies.

Israel's role is also secondary to the Saudi role. We've been in bed with the Saudis since the 1930s, and with Israel only since the '70s. Israel is used by the US solely as a source of firepower and muscle in the M.E. The Saudis have what we really want -- oil.

During the Suez Crisis in 1956, the US actually sided with Egypt rather than the invaders from Israel, Britain, and France, who wanted control over the Suez and regime change against Nasser.

We strengthened Nasser against the Zionist expansionists, proving that the Jews and Israel have no inherent control over us.

With all the anti-Zionist fervor in Saudi Arabia, you think a Zionist-controlled American government would at least sever relations with the Saudis, maybe even invade or bomb them to make them stop hating the Jews. Instead we don't care and turn a blind eye to it. They've got big oil.

Our alliance with Israel is strictly utilitarian, and the day that the geopolitical calculation says we should align with Iran and Russia instead, buh-bye to the American-Israeli alliance... unless the Israelis wanted to change as well, and join their former nemesis of Iran.

First Bill Kristol pushes for regime change in Iran, in addition to Syria. Now we have the son of the deposed Shah, living in exile, saying we should have regime change in Iran -- how it used to be back in the '60s and '70s, man:

You always see people pointing to Iranian life under the Shah as this free-love paradise with Persian cuties mincing around in miniskirts and letting their big hair flow freely. (Ditto pictures of Afghanistan pre-Taliban.)

Of course, that was a fluke -- it's not like Iran was Western or free-loving during the Jazz Age, or any time before that. The Shah's rule was a brief cosplaying episode for Iranians to pretend they were swingin' mod Westerners, rather than conservative Middle Easterners.

Reminder that there is no such thing as a "limited" action in the Middle East, given how many sides are intensely involved and eager to ramp things up against their enemies if they smell the opportunity opening up, however "limited" it seems at first.

Give it a week, and Bill Kristol will be saying, "Regime change in Syria and Iran is nice, but what we really need is regime change in Russia."

Well, it's important to remember that Iran obviously contributed forged intelligence to trick gullible Americans into invading Iraq. Something I suspect Trump is aware of. Just like he (by his own words) is aware of the enormous Iranian presence in Iraq and Syria. Iran are not our friends by any means. I'm pretty tired of alt-right types and libertarians trying to white knight for the Iranians just because the Israelis hate them.

anon is missing something.. russia and israel are actually allies. which makes sense given the amount of former soviet citizens living in israel. american jews, even zionist ones, shouldn't be 100% conflated with israeli jews in their attitudes.

Relatively speaking, they are -- our main ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, blew up the World Trade Center and flew another plane into the Pentagon. Their "Sunni moderate" ally, Pakistan, harbored Bin Laden afterwards for years.

They are the ones who fund and spread the radical Salafi mosques that create the ideological breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadist groups. They also fund and supply these jihadist groups.

That's the threat of terrorism that Americans face -- from jihadists.

Iran has never attacked us, let alone like 9/11, does not harbor major criminals who attacked us like Bin Laden, and does not spread radical mosques and fund and supply them.

They support groups like Hezbollah whose goals are to drive invading armies out of their homelands, e.g. driving Israel out of southern Lebanon, and maybe soon from the Golan Heights.

Hezbollah does not roam around the Mid-East killing any Muslims who do not come from the same sect as they do, does not blow up shrines and buildings belonging to other Muslim sects, does not convert other Muslims at the barrel of a gun, and certainly does not do any of this stuff in America or the West in general.

That's just on the matter of violence, terrorism, and war. They also have just as much to offer us economically -- oil -- as the Arabians do. Iran + Iraq produce about as much oil as Saudis do. But one of those partners merely dislikes us, while the other expresses their hatred of us by hijacking our planes and flying them into our buildings.

For now it's counter-productive to focus on the bad role that Israel plays in the region. Not because it's false, but it's one of the most difficult things to redpill Americans about, especially Republicans / Trump voters, and especially if they're over 40.

However, driving a wedge between us and the Saudis will be much easier because of 9/11 etc. No Christians LARP-ing as Muslims.

Once we break free of that alliance, a more neutral relation with Israel follows automatically.

If Israel retaliates, it will remove the mask and show normal Americans that they don't have some kind of loving fondness for us. Then normies will have little problem letting the Zionists fend for themselves.

That's just on the matter of violence, terrorism, and war. They also have just as much to offer us economically -- oil -- as the Arabians do. Iran + Iraq produce about as much oil as Saudis do. But one of those partners merely dislikes us, while the other expresses their hatred of us by hijacking our planes and flying them into our buildings.

Which one do the Jewish neocons and Israel fear?

Which one buys billions of weapons from the US?

I'm using him as a window into the neocon plan, and obviously most of them in the Deep State and military are not Jews (McMaster, Mattis, etc.).

Mattis was Kristol's pick as a Republican candidate to beat Trump!

Of course most are not Jewish. The issue is the agenda not which particular meathead carries it out.

McCain, Graham, Bolton are not Jewish but they are world class "cucks" to the Jews.

"And then who takes up the slack and buys the $150+ billion in weapons sales that Saudi made in the Obama years?"

If anyone, Iran or Syria. Distancing ourselves from the Saudis means more toward Syria and Iran. Or Trump will tell the MIC to "expect major budget cuts" as with every other department.

Zionists have no leverage over people with actual power. Bill Kristol is no king-maker -- see the GOP primaries and general, when he recruited McCuckin and still lost Utah big-league.

Lyin' Ted tried to mobilize the Judeo-LARP-ers among the grassroots voters, and he too failed to stump the Trump.

It's only now that Trump faces the military wing of Deep State that he's having trouble -- they are the ones who matter, not Zionists or evangelicucks. The instant Israel stopped being useful to their plans for world domination, buh-bye muh special relationship.

"By now, Iran is a strongly unified country with growing power and influence, and is backed by Russia which is also stronger and more unified over time."

Why shouldn't the Sunni powers be more than a match for Iran if there's no proxy wars to distract them? Both Saudis and Turks have larger economies than Iran adjusted for PPP as well as access to lots of high-tech US weaponry. Adding in Israel(which for now seems to behave as a Sunni power) is just overkill. I almost think backing a Kurdish/Shia alliance would make more sense.

Saudis, Turks, and Jews could counter Iran alone, but not Iran plus Russia.

My point is the trends, where things are heading. Iran's value has been going up, especially now that they are re-establishing their influence over Eastern Mesopotamia (historically common), giving access to Iraqi oil.

Israel gets softer and softer, Jordan has been bought off for so long, Turkey just saw a coup attempt, and the Saudi elite is so numerous that in-fighting is bound to tear them apart as oil wealth plateaus.

But when you put Russia on Iran's side, with some help of uncertain type from China, it's an even match or more.

The wild card now is Egypt. Historically they align with the southern crescent of Sunnis and Israel. But al-Sisi was emphatic on *no* regime change for Assad, whereas Turkey, Saudi, and Jordan were vocally *for* regime change. I think Abdullah of Jordan was the first, in 2011.

Since that's the major conflict right now, Egypt has at least tenuously put itself on the Iranian rather than the Arabian side.

Egypt does benefit from massive bribes from Uncle Sam, just like Jordan and Israel, but it's been the center of empires going back thousands of years, so they'd be no slouch even without American aid.

The US just humiliated al-Sisi by having him over to meet Trump, when the official line was still "no regime change," and then turning around and pushing for regime change and airstrikes against Assad a few days later when Abdullah visits, contrary to Egypt's wishes (strong condemnation from Egyptian parliament).

So I wouldn't be surprised if Egypt either declines getting involved on either side, or throws in with Syria and Russia (and therefore, Iran). That would be a big loss to the Arabian side.

Russia or China will only feel more pressure to give proxy support to the Shi'ite alliance if the balance of power shifts decisively toward the Sunni alliance.

Historically, Russia and Persia were enemies and if certain pressures were removed, should be possible to weaken the modern Russo-Iranian relationship. Axis of Evil American foreign policy creates self-fulfilling prophecies.

Anatolian, Egyptian, and Persian powers have fought for thousands of years over the ground in between them. The actual Arabians have only been big players intermittently.I would expect to see the historical balance of power re-emerge between these 3 centers where if one gets too powerful, the other 2 will knock them down a peg.

"Why shouldn't the Sunni powers be more than a match for Iran if there's no proxy wars to distract them? Both Saudis and Turks have larger economies than Iran adjusted for PPP as well as access to lots of high-tech US weaponry."

You're ignoring critical human and geographical factors.

Saudi Arabia has a parade ground army. Their soldiers are soft and ill-disciplined, their officer corps lazy, arrogant, and generally resistant to any attempts at professionalism and reform. Take a look at videos from Yemen to see the clown show that ensued when the Saudis tried to have their troops fight a real war against a serious enemy. They've relied almost entirely on foreign mercenaries, stand-off bombing, and a starvation blockade, and have been almost completely stalled on the ground for a year by an ill-equipped irregular army.

Iran, on the other hand, trained Hezbollah, the only Arab infantry force that has stood its ground against the Israelis in the last 40 years. If we're imagining any sort of ground confrontation, the safe bet is the Iranians making mincemeat of the Saudis unless they're faced with overwhelming numbers and firepower (and I'd bet on the Persians being more likely than the Saudis to be clever enough to avoid falling into such a trap).

Air and naval warfare is more likely though, given they're on the opposite sides of the Gulf. While it's questionable how effective Iranian swarming tactics might be against a U.S. carrier battle group (I personally think the carrier-sinking exercises are a bit of a bluff and a misdirection on their part, and that the real mission of the Iranian speedboats would be to harass and prolong any mine clearance operations in the Strait of Hormuz), there's no reason to think they'd have much trouble with the Saudi Navy.

Saudi Arabia has invested in a small number of big 'prestige' corvettes and frigates and has no real naval tradition or operational expertise, so if they're stupid enough to try sailing an armada into the Persian Gulf, it's going down. If they were smart they'd aim to try a distant blockade far out in the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean, where they'd only have Iran's handful of Kilo submarines to worry about.

In the air, Saudi Arabia does hold its one trump card in terms of having a much larger force of modern fighter jets. The question is, what exactly are they going to accomplish if neither their land nor naval forces can successfully get anything done? They can inflict destruction on Iranian infrastructure, oil production, and cities, but they will not attacking defenseless targets as in Yemen; the Iranians do have air defenses and a small fighter force of their own to inflict attrition on the Saudi Air Force. Bombing will not achieve any decisive results, given the proven resilience of the Iranian population as well as Iranian capability to reply in kind with strikes on Saudi oil infrastructure (all on the Gulf coast) using missiles, drones, and naval commando teams.

So a Saudi-Iranian war, absent any other players, looks likely to settle into a long contest of attrition. The hardy Persians will be better able to endure the hardships of a long war than the soft, entitled Saudis.

Wars of course, are fought for actual reasons; that war of attrition would be mutually draining, lose-lose scenario, so neither side would attack the other without a clear objective in mind. Iran has neither the means to effectively invade the Arabian peninsula nor much of a reason to try it. They do have interests there, as in Bahrain and Yemen, but they'd be better served to to continue as they do now in using indirect means of influence. This means Saudi Arabia would have to be the aggressor here - so what would they be trying to accomplish? They'd love to remove all Iranian/Shia influence from Bahrain and Yemen - but in fact that they already are attempting to do so and throwing pretty much everything they have into trying to keep these regions under their control. The fact is, the Iranians simply have very little on-the-ground footprint for them to hit, the Yemeni rebels get only intermittent and limited assistance and are by and large on their own.

So is there any plausible scenario that would lead to such a war? One maybe - the Saudis being stupid enough to try going into Iraq and removing Iranian influence - unlikely as they're already bogged in Yemen (and realizing that throwing tens of billions of dollars at US arms dealers still didn't buy them competent forces) and because it would turn into a disaster on part with the Athenian expedition to Syracuse.

Long answer short, no, Saudi Arabia is not stronger than Iran just because it has more money and more modern equipment, in fact I'd argue they're weaker in a few critical ways and more or less incapable of actually defeating Iran in a conventional war.

----------------------

As for Turkey, that's a different question. The Turks, like the Persians, can fight (unlike the Saudis). Turkey's army is better equipped for offensive warfare (with tanks, mechanized forces, etc.) than the Iranians and it has the larger and more modern air force.

Iran would be forced to fight defensively in any war against Turkey - which bodes a strategic problem if the war is happening because Turkey is attacking distant Iranian interests or forces in Syria (plausible scenario).

Turkey could defeat the Iranians in Syria (and the Syrians themselves) if push came to shove. However, they'd run into a brick wall if they actually tried invading Iran - they'd be trying to push a mechanized army through layers of mountain ranges at the end of a very long line of supply which would run straight through Kurdish territory.

The Kurds, meanwhile, would offer Iran its main means by which to strike back at the Turks. The Iranian strategy would be to try and turn Syria (and/or Iraq) into meat grinders for the invading and occupying Turkish forces, while raising enough Hell in Turkey using Kurdish proxy forces to try and bring the Turks to the bargaining table once they've been worn down enough with little or nothing to show for it.

Turkey would be the more difficult opponent for Iran, but again, the Iranians are probably strong enough to make it too expensive for the Turks to go ahead and launch it. And besides, this is ignoring the Russia factor, which will be far more influential in a Turkish-Iranian war than a Saudi-Iranian one.

Could Iran beat Turkey and Saudi Arabia together? Difficult question - on their own they'd almost surely survive any attempt at invasion but they might well lose control of client regions such as Syria or Iraq. With Russia's backing, however, they'd have a chance to prevail on all fronts.

And what about Israel? Israel can't do much to Iran itself aside from a few long-range air strikes (likely successful ones unless the Russians do some serious upgrading to Iranian air defense capabilities). They can go after Hezbollah and Assad, however.

We know Hezbollah isn't just going to collapse in the first week - Israel will be throwing a lot more firepower at it than in 2006, but Hezbollah has massively expanded its reserve forces and sharpened them with fighting experience in Syria, while at the same time building up an exponentially larger stockpile of rockets.

Would Assad collapse though if the Israelis hit Syria with full force? Harder question to answer. The Syrian forces in general are pretty weak - they're a lot better now than when the war started, no doubt about that, but still not up to scratch with Hezbollah or the Kurds at infantry warfare (a few special forces formations excepted).

The Israelis will crush the Syrians in air-to-air combat or in armored warfare, so the SAA's best bet to survive is to bunker down and fight defensively like Hezbollah. The Israelis will try to induce a regime collapse with a shock-and-awe air campaign, but unless they get lucky enough to blast Bashar, it's not all that likely to succeed - what the SAA can and will have to do is consolidate, give up a lot of the ground they've regained from the Islamists and rush their best forces back to Damascus (this likely means losing Aleppo again as they won't be able to sustain an air corridor to a holdout force like Deir ez-Zor's with the Israelis in control of the skies).

In terms of the Syrian air defense system, I don't think the S-300 will be able to form a decisive barrier against the Israeli Air Force the way the Egyptians were able to use their SAMs to shield their Suez crossing - the Russians aren't giving them enough batteries and the IAF is too cutting-edge and experienced (against say the Saudi Air Force this might be a different story). Syrian S-300's will be able to inflict some losses on Israeli jets but not enough to prevent Israeli dominance of the Syrian airspace.

If Assad quickly marshals his ground forces at the capital, however, and turns it into Fortress Damascus, his government will live to fight another day no matter how many bombs Israel drops. The IDF got bogged down taking control of mere border villages in Lebanon in the 2006 war - the idea of them mounting a multi-division expedition into Syria to wage a Stalingrad-esque battle for Damascus is delusional.

So the SAA loses ground, loses its air force, but it survives, hunkers down, and goads the Israelis to come and fight it on its own ground, as does Hezbollah (both in Lebanon and in the Golan) and whatever Iranian expeditionary forces are in Syria. Israel batters away at strongly defended towns and bunker networks and carpet bombs the cities; Hezbollah unloads its rockets and missiles (more likely hitting some real strategic targets this time with its larger supply of longer-range missiles), as does the SAA (and maybe Iran with a few of its ballistic missiles, if the Israeli Air Force strikes Iran on its home territory at all).

And then what? I don't see the Israeli armed forces having the means to really crack their opponents' defenses in the short-term nor the Israeli population having the will to to keep fighting a long-term offensive war. It may cost a lot more than last time, but the most likely outcome is another defensive victory for Hezbollah and by extension Iran (albeit at the expense of setting back Assad's victory in Syria by a year or two, if not more).

Maybe the Israelis actually launch this war at some point, not on the calculation that they'd win decisively against Hezbollah, but simply as a means of spoiling an impending victory on Assad's part and prolonging the war.